NewEnergyNews

Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

While the OFFICE of President remains in highest regard at NewEnergyNews, this administration's position on the climate crisis makes it impossible to regard THIS president with respect. Below is the NewEnergyNews theme song until 2020.

THE POINTA lot of work has been done on net zero energy homes and on streamlining the energy consumption of industrial-scale utility and manufacturing plants. There has been less attention to the mid-sized buildings that comprise the bulk of city life.

The study looks at a cross section of buildings in California that consume from 100 kilowatts (about 25 houses) to 5 megawatts (a small suburb) of power. It estimates such buildings use roughly a third of the energy consumed by California’s commercial sector.

Such a microgrid can integrate with the grid power supplied to the building a variety of New Energy and Energy Efficiency options, including especially (1) natural gas-fired engines, (2) gas turbines, microturbines, and fuel cells, (3) solar photovoltaics (PV) and solar heating systems, (4) conventional batteries, flow batteries, and storage of heat, (5) heat exchangers used with solar thermal or recovered heat, (6) natural gas chillers, and (7) heat-driven absorption chillers.

The Lawrence Berkeley Lab researchers drew on Distributed Energy Resources CustomerAdoption Model (DER-CAM), a powerful new tool that integrates the spectrum of a microgrid’s needs and potential supplies to determine which options best serve the goals of cutting back the use of energy and reducing the building’s greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs).

The most noteworthy conclusion is that much heat is available for recapture and reuse, enough to meet a third of the state’s goal for combined heat and power (CHP) (set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for 2020 at 4 megawatts). Buildings in the hot inland areas of the state may offer the biggest opportunities for energy savings and GhG reductions.

THE DETAILSTerms like combined heat and power (CHP) and microgrid are not nearly as commonly known in the world of New Energy (NE) and Energy Efficiency (EE) as solar panels and wind turbines but they are at least as important.

Combined heat and power (CHP), also known as cogeneration, is the recapture and use of the heat generated and lost in the production of electricity or the running of engines. Buildings often have air conditioning or heating systems that lose much in the form of heat. A micro CHP system is also a type of Distributed Energy Resource (DER) and is essentially comparable to a small PV system except that, instead of the sun's light, CHP uses recaptured heat to generate electricity. (Absorption chillers are a specialized form of CHP that use waste heat for cooling.) In one UK study, micro CHP was found to be a more cost-effective way to reduce GhGs than solar PV.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) goal is for the state to install by 2020 4 megawatts of CHP capacity.

A microgrid is any local energy network that integrates various forms of DERs. In a commercial building, the available DERs can be assimilated into the building’s service along with utiltity-provided electricity from the central transmission system through a microgrid. It gives the building the freedom to operate independently from central transmission, run entirely on utility-generated electricity or to combine sources.

When a microgrid and DERs, including CHP, are available, the questions of which sources are the most economical and when they should be used become crucial. Answering thess questions involves a complex set of factors that fall into 2 major categories: (1) The cost, efficiency, and environmental benefits (including – where possible – renewable energy credits, RECs, and emissions allowances), and (2) the power quality and reliability (PQR) benefits of DERs and semiautonomous control of their use.

The Lawrence Berkeley researchers use the Distributed Energy Resources CustomerAdoption Model (DER-CAM) computer program to calculate the entire spectrum of possibilities, identify the optimal economic combination and calculate the GhG reductions associated with that combination.

It is a source of GhG-reductions so far virtually untapped. Only 150 megawatts of CHP capacity is currently installed in California's mid-sized buildings (hospitals, colleges, hotels, large office buildings, etc.). The potential for energy savings and Ghg-reductions is large, however, because they have a balanced and simultaneous requirement for electricity and heat for hot water, space heating, and cooling.

From the CEUS database of 2790 premises, the researchers selected 138 representative California sites, representing ~35% of the commercial electricity demand, across all of the state’s varying climate zones. Through DER-CAM simulations using different technology costs, tariffs for 3 major utilities and a natural gas company as well as varying interest rates and incentive levels, a set of optimal choices emerged.

The study estimates that the mid-sized commercial building sector can economically install 1.4 gigawatts of CHP capacity of CARB’s 4 gigawatts by 2020 CHP goal. That’s ~35% of the goal, about the same percentage of the commercial electricity demand medium-sized buildings create.

Deeper weeds: CARB assumes a fixed capacity factor of 86%. DER-CAM estimates an average 60% capacity factor. Therefore, CHP can actually meet only ~24% of the CARB goal. Other factors mean the 1.4 gigawatts of CHP from Main Street buildings will only meet 19% of CHP’s share of the GhG cuts.

Still, that's a significant reduction. DER-CAM estimates the optimum use of CHP will lower the sample buildings' annual energy bill by $190 million per year.

Natural gas used for cooking in restaurants represents ~one quarter of the state’s commercial natural gas consumption. Appropriately applied, CHP can replace some of this fossil fuel use and impact GhGs. Differences between restaurants are so great, however, that accurate estimates of impacts are not readily available even with a tool as comprehensive and malleable as DER-CAM.

Internal combustion engines (ICEs) with heat exchangers (HXs) are expected to play a strongly dominant role in medium-sized buildings’ power supply, even in 2020 and even despite being less efficient and creating worse GhGs than macrogrid electricity. DER-CAM calculations also include a less common 2020 mix of solar thermal, estimated to total 416 megawatts in 2020, and PV, estimated to be 183 megawatts.

The impact of either a CHP-only feed-in tariff (FiT) incentive or a pure net-metering incentive would be moderate on the 2020 estimates. The FiT increases New Energy and CHP production (the higher the FiT, the more the New Energy and CHP) but also increases GhGs (because CHP from ICEs with HXs generate more GhGs). When solar thermal (329 megawatts) and PV 423 megawatts) are included, there is higher total DG energy output and CHP and GhGs decrease.

If, by 2020, there is a much higher investment ($1500 per kilowatt) in fuel cells (FCs) to provide distributed storage for the DERs, CHP could provide 73% of CARB’s 4 megawatt CHP goal while cutting GhGs more significantly than in any other DER-CAM case. There would, however, be less PV (95 megawatts) and solar thermal (247 megawatts) installed.

In the absence of the kind of spending or a GhG price that would drive investment in FCs, GhG reductions from the use of CHP would be modest – but higher than previously estimated and completely worth efforts to obtain.

As the (hypothetical) price on GhGs increases, there will likely be less natural gas used to drive ICEs but more FCs, more CHP, and more PV and solar thermal.

Varying climate zones also impact the amount of CHP used. The very hot and dry Southern California region served by San Diego Gas & Electric has the highest uptake of CHP. More temperate coastal regions served by Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric have more average uptake of CHP. Hotter drier climate regions drive CHP use because of the requirement for more air conditioning.

The most likely candidates for the sum total of advantages gained from the use of CHP come from large office buildings, health care facilities, colleges, and hotels/motels, especially in hotter, drier climates.

QUOTES- From the Lawrence Berkeley report: "The successful deployment of microgrids will depend heavily on the economics of distributed energy resources (DER) in general, and upon the early success of small clusters of mixed technology generation, grouped with storage, and controllable loads. The potential benefits of microgrids are multi-faceted, but from the adopters’ perspective, there are two major groupings: 1) the cost, efficiency, and environmental benefits (including possible emissions credits) of combined heat and power (CHP), which is the focus of this study, and 2) the power quality and reliability (PQR) benefits of on-site generation with semiautonomous control."

- From the Lawrence Berkeley report: "How DG with CHP might be implemented in cost minimizing microgrids is analyzed by applying an optimization that minimizes example sites’ annual energy costs. Using a representative sample of 138 mid-sized commercial buildings taken from CEUS, existing tariffs of three major electricity distribution ultilities plus a natural gas company, and performance data of available technology in 2020, the GHG reduction potential is estimated for a market segment representing about 35% of CA’s commercial sector. In a reference case, this segment is estimated to be capable of economically installing 1.4 GW of CHP, 35% of the CARB statewide Scoping Study 4 GW goal...Several sensitivity runs were completed. One applies a simple feed-in tariff similar to net metering, and another includes a generous self-generation incentive program (SGIP) subsidy for fuel cells. The feed-in tariff proves ineffective at stimulating CHP deployment, while the SGIP buy down is more powerful."

- From the Lawrence Berkeley report: “Note that efficiency and behavioral response may contribute towards meeting future energy services requirements, however, these were not taken into account in this study. Additionally, the area constraint for PV and solar thermal systems needs a more detailed analysis since they vary with climate zone as well as building ownership. Finally, we believe the ownership of buildings and the issue of project decision-making authority needs special attention since it might constitute a major barrier for DG adoption and dampen the DG / CHP potential identified in this study.”

"From only 17 MW in 2002 to 966 MW in 2008, thin film's rise over the last decade has been remarkable indeed. Fueled by the greatest success story in the PV industry -- cadmium telluride producer First Solar -- the technology has captured the imagination of industry participants and interested observers alike. First Solar represents the disruptive potential of thin-film PV in full: high throughput (1,011 megawatts in 2009), competitive efficiency (11%), and an industry-leading cost (currently 83 cents per watt), enabling significant profit… listed on the S&P index…[and] the largest PV module producer in the world…

"The search for alternative technologies led to a tidal wave of investment and entrepreneurial activity in thin film, with 46 companies entering the market between 2004 and 2008, as well as $1.8 billion in venture capital investment in the space. As market share rose from a mere 3% in 2001 to 12% in 2007, companies spoke confidently of hundreds of megawatts of production at below a dollar per watt being within arm's reach. It was only a matter of time before thin film would replace crystalline silicon as the dominant PV technology, finally enabling the long sought-after dream of grid parity…"

"…As of 2010, only one other company besides First Solar -- triple-junction amorphous silicon firm United Solar -- has produced in excess of 100 MW annually. The cost structure of most amorphous silicon, considering its low efficiency, is barely competitive with crystalline silicon, and CIGS producers have encountered technical issues in manufacturing…[C]capital constraints made banks and developers shy away…Asian crystalline silicon PV producers continue to ramp down costs and increase capacity beyond the gigawatt level…[T]thin film [may] fulfill its potential and make meaningful inroads into the solar energy landscape, creating new markets…Or [it may] be relegated to a bit-player role…

"…GTM Research's just-published report Thin Film 2010: Market Outlook through 2015…[offers a] set of insights…[1] Thin film capacity will exceed 10 GW by the end of 2012…[2] Best-practice producers across all technologies will achieve costs of 80 cents per watt by the beginning of 2012, but there will be significant variation across producers…[3] First Solar will continue its dominance, remaining the largest thin film manufacturer in the world over the next three years…"

"[4] CIGS and amorphous silicon (particularly turnkey line production) will likely not see meaningful market share before 2013, after which cost reductions and efficiency improvements will finally start to drive a competitive product offering at an adequate margin…[5] High-margin thin film production will be a game played by the select few…[6] All signs point to one of the venture-backed CIGS companies (Solyndra, Nanosolar, Miasolé) emerging as successful representatives of this technology…7. The coming years should see a great deal more consolidation than has been witnessed so far in the thin film industry…

"…Only past 2013 will thin film adoption, the case of First Solar aside, begin to really take off, and developments over the next three years will play a crucial role in determining the exact pace of this transition…[S]uccess [may] arrive a lot later than expected. But [it is quite likely to] arrive…"

"…[Though] the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and some fossil fuel companies lobby hard to deny the effect of human activity on global warming, some high-technology firms are…embracing environmental attitudes as a source of new business enterprises. Prominent among those firms is General Electric…

"In 2005, GE launched what it called its "ecomagination initiative," which it intended to meet customers' demands for more energy-efficient products and, in the process, improve the company's bottom line. Since then, the company has brought more than 80 "ecomagination solutions"- both products and services-to market. Revenues from the ecomagination sector represented 9% of the company's total last year, and increased by 21% from 2008 to 2009."

"GE hasn't adopted the approach simply because it feels it should do its bit for the environment…[It’s] a hard-edged business strategy…To GE…"eco" means economics plus ecology. Thus, the corporation bases the venture on the fundamental proposition that "green is green"-in other words, that the development of innovative solutions to environmental problems will inevitably produce profit for the company…[And it sees New Energy as the] next big emerging market…

"The approach has a natural fit with GE's corporate footprint, which covers a wide range of industries and locations. GE's businesses that have benefited from ecomagination's products and services so far include energy, transportation, consumer & industrial, oil & gas, water & process technologies, aviation, healthcare, enterprise solutions, and even GE Enterprise Services and GE Capital."

"The venture has also provided strong assistance to the company's global growth. In December 2009, for example, General Electric China announced that ecomagination products in China produced revenues of $656 million in the first three quarters of 2009… a 50% increase over the similar period in 2008…

"…Each GE division is encouraged to come up with green products and…to develop its own plan for reducing its environmental footprint…[GE has doubled] the firm's investment in R&D on clean technologies over a period of four years, from $750 million in 2005 to more than $1.4 billion in 2008…[Work on new battery technologies, advances in wind energy, smart grid te3chnologies, “clean” coal and energy efficient lighting reresent] roughly one-third of the company's current overall investment in R&D…"

"Suzlon Wind Energy Corp., the North American subsidiary of Suzlon Energy Limited…plans to bring online 728 MW of renewable energy in the U.S. in 2010…

"Among the nine 2010 projects, 351 newly installed turbines will produce clean energy that can power as many as 220,000 homes in seven states. In addition, these projects will create more than 50 long-term wind turbine maintenance-related jobs in rural areas. During the construction and commissioning of the nine wind farms across the [U.S.], Suzlon estimates that its employees will contribute $1.5 million to the local economies where they live and work…"

"The nine Suzlon projects are located in seven states… Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington. They encompass community projects in Kansas and Minnesota, and the expansion of the first wind farm in Arizona. Nearly all projects feature Suzlon’s S88-2.1 MW wind turbine that routinely has performed well…

"Frequently, Suzlon hears about how its wind farm construction and maintenance employees are appreciated for bolstering local communities and economies. At one wind power plant, Suzlon even contributed to the rebuilding of a town - Greensburg, Kansas - where 95 percent of its structures were destroyed by a tornado in May 2006. Greensburg’s wind farm is home to 10 Suzlon S64-1.25 MW wind turbines that can generate enough energy to power 3,750 homes."

[Greensburg Mayor Bob Dixson:] “Suzlon and this wind farm provided a huge boost to this community after the tornado devastated the region and during our recent recovery…The town is making a remarkable comeback with our mission to be ‘better, stronger and greener.’ Suzlon’s turbines are helping us achieve our green energy goals and are serving to exemplify the potential for wind-powered towns.”

"At present, Suzlon has more than 1,750 MW of wind turbine capacity installed in the U.S. and expects to have 2,480 MW by the end of the year."

"…Detroit Edison…[t]he Detroit-based utility and subsidiary of DTE Energy is looking for commercial customers to participate in its SolarCurrents program…[that] seeks to install photovoltaic systems on customer rooftops or property to generate 15 megawatts of electricity throughout its southeast Michigan service area during the next five years.

"…Detroit Edison will invest more than $100 million in the program. Customers who agree to having the equipment installed must participate for at least 20 years…Edison will own, operate and maintain the equipment; customers will get an annual credit on their energy bill based on system size as well as a one-time upfront construction payment."

"The utility will accept applications until April 29. Applicants should own a facility with at least 15,000 square feet of unobstructed roof in good condition, or a similar sized ground area…

"…Edison also offers incentives to residential customers who install photovoltaic systems…Edison has announced that it plans to add more than 1,200 megawatts of renewable energy, including wind farms and other green energy facilities."

THE POINTRemember when health insurance reform was pronounced a lost cause? That’s where Cap&Trade and the effort to get the U.S. into the fight against global change are now. If they are to go forward, lawmakers must find a way to stop U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by putting a price on the generation of them without stopping U.S. economic growth or overburdening U.S. energy consumers.

The study finds that Cap&Dividend could drive a transition to New Energy (NE) and Energy Efficiency (EE) that would create 360,000 jobs from public spending and many more as private spending shifts from Old Energy to the New Energy economy. The public spending could also be designed to support more job growth in states with high unemployment and high dependence on Old Energy.

Despite the relatively minimal costs that would be imposed by the Cap&Trade system proposed in legislation passed by the House of Representatives in June 2009 and stalled in the Senate ever since, the market-based plan to fight global climate change has been branded “cap-and-tax” by opponents on the left and the right.

Most Congress-watchers believe neither Cap&Trade nor any other comprehensive energy and climate bill will get through the Senate this year. Some hold out hope for a bipartisan energy and climate proposal being worked out by Senators Kerry (D-MA), Lieberman (I-CN) and Graham (R-SC). It is unclear exactly what the details of the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham (KLG) emissions-cutting plan will ultimately be. The Senators have acknowledged the potential of the Cap&Dividend concept contained in the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act proposed by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) but appear to be developing a "reduction and refund" compromise concept.

Though Senator Graham has worked hard on the compromise legislation, he has – since the passage of the health insurance reform legislation – repeatedly told the media he foresees difficulty with any other business being done in the Senate until after the November elections.

Therefore, even as the new report elucidates the significant economic benefits of Cap&Dividend, its fate is anything but CLEAR.

THE DETAILSThe goal of CLEAR, very nearly matching the Obama administration goal, is to cut U.S. GhGs 80% by 2050.

A cap on greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) is inevitably going to impose increased costs on those who generate them, especially on those who use fossil fuels to generate electricity and sell fossil fuels to power transport. The costs will certainly be passed on to all consumers who use energy or use products that require energy to manufacture, transport and/or sell.

The only way to protect consumers from the financial burden of those increased costs is to transfer the revenues generated from the charges imposed on GhG-emitters back to the consumers. That is what a carbon tax would do, that is what the Cap&Trade system in the House bill written by Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) would do and that is most emphatically what the Cantwell-Collins Cap&Dividend plan would do.

The CLEAR act charges GhG-intensive industries per ton of emissions (“carbon shares”) and returns 75% of the revenues to the public as monthly dividends. It channels the other 25% into a Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust (CERT) Fund that will invest in New Energy and Energy Efficiency.

The emphasis is on a system that caps and prices emissions, is affordable to businesses as well as just and equitable to consumers and creates incentives and funding for a shift to a New Energy economy.

Every U.S. consumer would get the same dividend (portion of the revenues obtained from emitters). Those who consume more energy will get less relief from rising energy costs by the dividend. Those who take conservation and efficiency steps to reduce their energy consumption will be more completely compensated by the dividend and hurt less by the rising costs.

High-income citizens tend to use more energy and will therefore likely pay more. Middle- and Low-income citizens should do better. In states where more electricity is generated by fossil fuels and where there is a need to travel longer distances by car, the latter groups may be more heavily burdened.

These income and regional sources of inequity can be compensated through the CERT fund in 2 ways: (1) A larger portion of the investment can go to regions that need to move more significantly to NE and EE, and (2) some ~9% of the total auction revenues could go to state-specific dividends that would further compensate Low- and Middle-income citizens in high-fossil fuel consuming regions in the early years of the transition, reducing the dividend portion from three-quarters to two-thirds but making the overall impact of the change more equitable.

The CLEAR Act includes strict provisions against the trading of the carbon shares and excludes any use of offsets. Both strictures are intended to simplify the system and protect it from fraud and abuse.

The total number of carbon shares available at auction would be determined by the overall cap, which would be progressively ratcheted down. The total revenues would be divided by the entire number of U.S. citizens. Each would get an equal monthly portion. Those who conserve more effectively on things that increase in price due to the cap and its consequences (energy and energy-intensive products) would do better – or at least less worse – and those who continue their old habits would do worse.

Income and region specific provisions would help keep the system equitable, especially during transition years.

The CERT fund portion of the revenues would be administered by the Congressional appropriations process and include a wide range of NE and EE possibilities.

In 2020, Cap&Dividend could be expected to cut GhGs to 5.4 billion tons. At $25/ton (carbon share), a price within the bill’s minimum and maximum collars for 2020, the revenue that would be available as dividends and for the CERT fund would be $135 billion.

The 2012 minimum carbon share price is $7 and the maximum carbon share price is $21. The bill allows the minimum price to increase 6.5% per year and the maximum price to increase 5.5% per year, leading to a 2020 minimum/maximum of $11.58/$32.23.

Household consumption of fossil fuels comprises ~66% of U.S. GhGs. The other third of U.S. GhGs is due to local, state, and federal government expenditure, non-profit institutions, and exports.

The dividend per person would be the same in every state but what the household pays as a result of higher fossil fuel prices differs because median incomes, home heating and cooling needs, and the carbon intensity of the state’s electricity supply all differ.

Differences across states are fairly small because total carbon use per capita is fairly similar across the country. Many of the differences have offsetting effects. Some states need more winter heating and some need more summer cooling. Some states use more coal but are typically lower income. And interstate differences will come with any program that prices emissions. Cap&Dividend, like the other programs, contains compensatory reallocation of some of the revenues it generates to make the system more equitable.

Net benefits vary. For those with lower incomes, the net impact is invariably positive, mainly because low-income households consume less than the average amount of carbon. For those with the highest incomes, the net impact is negative because of their above-average levels of consumption.

The authors report 2 outstanding conclusions from their study. (1) The lower 70% of the U.S. population, which comprises the lower and middle classes, comes out ahead (derive a net monetary benefit beyond the benefits of ending U.S. dependence on Old Energy and cutting back GhGs) in the CLEAR Cap&Dividend system. (2) Interstate differences of impacts are much smaller than income differences. The average net benefit nationally of people in the lowest income group is $186; the average net loss of people in the highest income group is $211. That's a range of $397. State differences only range from an $11 benefit to a $101 benefit, a $90 swing.

To reiterate: Investments from the CERT Fund will likely create ~360,000 jobs nationally and can be directed to regions with higher unemployment and worse dependence on Old Energy. Many more jobs can be expected as private investment follows the trends established by CERT spending. From this, it is CLEAR: The right energy and climate bill will also be a jobs bill.

QUOTES- Frank Maisano, energy analyst, Bracewell & Giuliani: “…KGL is now referring to their bill as "reduction and refund" as opposed to "cap and trade," even though the proposal will still include a phased-in national cap and allocated allowances. The draft discussion continues to stress the need for a 17% reduction by 2020, the absolute necessity of a carbon price signal (especially to incent CCS deployment), and the fear of EPA and state action in the absence of a bill. More rumors regarding details include more focus on “Cap-and-refund” bill that returns money to consumer thru the utilities via a rebate on their electric bill, more limited trading than the House or EPW bills, a 4-year delay for manufacturers under the bill to assist with compliance, a “hard” price collar, likely between $12 and $20+ per ton but also an allowance reserve, more offshore drilling and revenue sharing, a linked fee for refiners instead of buying allowances, more nuclear loan guarantees and NRC licensing improvements and incentives for natural gas vehicles. They continue to discuss things like the Bingaman Energy bill and a new Clean Energy standard as well as effort to mitigate opposition by working with groups…”

- From the CERI report: “The [CLEAR] Act seeks to protect the climate by capping the use of fossil fuels, so as to gradually reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 80% by the year 2050. At the same time, the Act seeks to protect family incomes by recycling three-quarters of the revenues from the sale of carbon permits directly to the public, and devoting the remaining one-quarter to job-creating investments in the clean energy transition… The CLEAR Act is a “100-75-25-0” climate policy…100% of the permits to bring fossil carbon into the U.S. economy will be auctioned — there are no permit giveaways. The bill strictly limits the buying and selling of permits to prevent carbon market speculation and profiteering…75% of the auction revenue is returned directly to the public in the form of equal dividends per person. These “energy security dividends” are paid monthly to every man, woman, and child lawfully residing in the United States…25% of the auction revenue is deposited into a Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust (CERT) Fund to be used for investments in energy efficiency, clean energy, adaptation to climate change, and assistance to sectors that face economic dislocation during the transition from the fossil-fueled economy…Zero “offsets” are allowed. Polluters cannot avoid buying permits or curbing their use of fossil fuels by paying someone else here or abroad to clean up after them…”

- From the CERI report: “…states that use more energy for home heating costs generally use less for air conditioning. Similarly, states that have more coal intensive electricity tend to have lower median incomes, and hence lower consumption, which leads to lower carbon price impacts…It is important to note that interstate differences in the impact of higher fossil fuel prices will occur under any policy to cap carbon emissions. Interstate differences in net impacts will depend on who gets the money. The most striking feature of the results shown in Table 1 is that the net impact of CLEAR on the median household is positive in every state…This reflects the fact that U.S. household incomes are skewed (in the strict statistical sense of that term) toward upper-income groups: hence the mean (average) is greater than the median (middle). The impact of higher fossil fuel prices is proportional to consumption, so this too is skewed to the top of the distribution. Because the median household is. Nationwide, the average net benefit works out to $65 per person, or $260 for a family of four…”

"Texas regulators may soon ramp up mandates requiring tougher energy-efficiency standards and development of renewable energy sources other than wind power.

"Earlier this year, the state’s Public Utility Commission proposed requiring utilities to offset 50 percent of their growth in electricity sales with energy-efficiency measures by 2014. That would be well above the current requirement of 20 percent…The utility commission has also put forward an early-stage proposal that would require 500 new megawatts of power in Texas to come from renewable energy sources like biomass, geothermal, solar and hydro in 2014…"

"Texas leads the nation in wind development, but under the proposal, 50 megawatts of nonwind renewables in 2014 would have to come from solar projects. Texas currently has less than seven megawatts of solar power…

"Both proposals are still receiving comments, and must be approved by the three commissioners, who are appointed by the Texas governor. Environmentalists, however, are hopeful…If the regulations get approved, they will be doing essentially what the the Texas legislature had contemplated doing a year ago. So many prosolar bills were filed in last year’s legislative session that it was dubbed the “solar session.” Several efficiency bills also were introduced…[But] only one clean-energy bill, which promoted property tax-financed solar and retrofit measures for homes, made it to the finish line."

"…[S]ince the Texas legislature does not convene again until next year, advocates are worried that the window for attracting renewable energy projects — and manufacturers of solar panels, who might favor locating in a big market — is closing…

"Kirk Watson, a state senator from Austin who sponsored one of the ill-fated renewables bills last session, said that he was glad that the Public Utility Commission was moving forward with their renewables rule, even if it only requires one-third as much development as his bill called for…"

"Far East Wind Power Corp…has entered into a Letter of Intent ("LOI") with Wuhan Guoce Nordic New Energy Co. Ltd. of Wuhan, China ("Guoce") to acquire…development stage wind farm projects located in Jilin Province and the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region ("Inner Mongolia").

"The proposed projects will be acquired from Guoce for cash and other considerations…Guoce is a manufacturer of wind turbines and has been assembling a 700 megawatt ("MW") portfolio of project locations and working with local, regional and national agencies as well as regional grid operators to acquire requisite permits and approvals necessary for development…[Far East Wind Power] has agreed to exclusively use wind turbines manufactured by Guoce should the projects proceed and to position Guoce as a strategic partner…"

"The most advanced-stage project of the portfolio is known as the TianHe 1 Project and is a proposed 50MW development with all approvals in place and a site ready for construction commencing in April. This Inner Mongolia location has been determined to be a robust wind resource…The TianHe Phase 2 project is planned for an additional 50MW later this year subject to permitting and approvals…"

"Additional projects as part of the Guoce portfolio include a number of locations in Jilin Province. They include a proposed 100MW development site at the Min Ying Development Zone, and a planned 500MW program dispersed across the proposed Taonan Project Phases 1-5. All sites have been identified by various government agencies as recognized wind resource development locations…which could offer short lead times to development.

"Far East's mission is to develop wind farms with the highest rates of return on investment in the industry by working with strategic partners to develop or acquire innovative solutions to drive cost out of the turbine manufacturing process…"

"Solar Power, Inc…has selected McClellan Business Park as the site for its U.S. manufacturing facility…[T]he Company has received an initial commitment of $24.7 million in Recovery Zone Facility Bonds ("RZFB") from Sacramento County and plans to use the proceeds from the sale of these bonds to help finance renovation and outfitting of the manufacturing facility to build its high-performance solar panels…

"…A portion of the RZFB Bond proceeds, upon successful placement, will also go in part towards the development of a utility-scale photovoltaic solar system in Sacramento County that will exceed 10 megawatts and have an estimated value of $50 million."

"The proposed manufacturing facility at the McClellan site will be approximately 100,000 square feet with an annual production capacity of 50 megawatts of Solar Power, Inc.'s top-ranked solar panels. It is estimated that the facility will bring 120 new construction jobs to the region during the 9-month construction period and 100 full-time skilled workers and office staff to the facility upon completion. Together with Solar Power, Inc.'s current manufacturing facility in China, the McClellan facility is expected to double the Company's annual production capacity to 100 megawatts…

"Solar Power, Inc. anticipates receiving the bond proceeds and beginning construction on the new headquarters and manufacturing facility in July with completion in early 2011…"

"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed adding emissions data from oil and gas operations to a list of 31 other sectors from which the agency collects greenhouse gas emissions information.

"The EPA is proposing for the first time a national mandatory greenhouse gas reporting system to…[better understand GHG sources]…The information also will help the EPA and businesses draft policies and programs to reduce emissions…"

[Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, EPA:] “Gathering this information is the first step toward reducing greenhouse emissions and fostering innovative technologies for the clean energy future…It’s especially important to track potent gases like methane, which traps more than 20 times as much heat as carbon and accelerates climate change. Once we know where we must act, American innovators and entrepreneurs can develop new technologies to protect our atmosphere and fight climate change.”

"The 31 sectors covering 85 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would be joined by the oil and natural gas sectors, industries that emit fluorinated gases and facilities that inject and store carbon dioxide underground for geologic sequestration or enhanced oil and gas recovery."

[EPA:] “Methane is the primary GHG emitted from oil and natural gas systems and is more than 20 times as potent as CO2 at warming the atmosphere, while fluorinated gases are even stronger and can stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years…Data collected from facilities that inject CO2 underground would enable EPA to track the amount of CO2 that is injected and in some cases require a monitoring strategy for detecting potential emissions to the atmosphere.”

"Collecting emissions data would begin at the start of 2011…[Oil and gas industry] trade groups have bristled at the suggestion that their operations should be held accountable for greenhouse gas emissions, arguing new federal rules would throw the industry and economies into nothing short of total calamity…"

THE POINTHere’s a statistic that will warm the cockles of the hearts of all those who wish the U.S. ill: Of the top 20 economies in the world, the U.S. ranks 10th in percent of GDP invested in New Energy and Energy Efficiency.

If, as some say, there is an “arms race” for dominance in the coming international New Energy economy, the U.S. is moving toward submission. If, as others say, there is a 21st century “space race” going on, the U.S. soon may not be able to overcome the force of gravity.

It makes headlines and captures attention to portray the emergence of the international New Energy economy as an arms race or a space race. In actuality, the international community of nations is attempting a Normandy invasion against dependence on the Old Energy economy of yesterday in order to win the struggle against the global climate change Old Energy has created.

In the relative terms of investment intensity (the percent of GDP invested in New Energy, NE, and Energy Efficiency, EE), Spain invested five times what the U.S. did in 2009. China, Brazil and the UK invested three times more.

The Pew report gathers salient and incisive numbers on NE & EE in the G20 nations which, as the world’s top 20 economies, account for 90% of world finance and investment. It offers some aggregate numbers that demonstrate to anybody who has had their head in a barrel of oil for the last 5 years and hasn’t gotten the word about the emerging New Energy economy:

(2) While the world struggled through the worst financial fall since the 1930s in 2008-09, investment in NE & EE in the G20 fell only 6.6%

(3) Rebounding from the crash in late 2008/early 2009, NE & EE saw a worldwide 2009 investment of $162 billion, the G20 nations accounting for $117 billion of it.

(4) The G20 economies had an average investment of $32 billion per quarter in each of the last three quarters of 2009. And the enormous investments made in NE & EE by many of the G20 governments to counteract the economic downturn haven’t yet really begun getting a response from innovators, businesses and installers. G20 investment in the NE & EE sector is expected to grow 25% to $200 billion in 2010 and at least as much again in 2011.

The Pew study shows clearly that national policy decisions that set goals and create incentives have unequivocal impacts on the growth of G20 nations’ New Energy economies. Nations like China, Brazil, the UK, Germany and Spain have aggressive policies and growing NE & EE capabilities. The U.S., which has no compelling national goals and inconsistent financial incentives, is falling toward also-ran status.

As commentators continue to point out, the vaunted U.S. leadership in innovation and entrepreneurship is at risk. Its own venture capital, long the force that has given the U.S. superpower status in the world economy, is migrating to offshore NE & EE opportunities.

The courageous people of Western Europe stood up to fascism in World War II but their economies were crushed and they shivered in darkness for several winters afterward while the U.S. helped them recover. If the U.S. does not get with the effort the world is making to defeat its current climate change threat, Washington may be asking the leaders of the New Energy invasion for help in winters to come.

THE DETAILSThe world invested $162 billion in New Energy (NE) and Energy Efficiency (EE) in 2009. While that was a drop from 2008 of 6.6%, world investment in the oil and gas industry fell of 19%, a clear statement of where the energy sector perceives emerging value to be.

At the end of 2009, the world’s installed renewable energy capacity was 250 gigawatts (GW), 6% of global generating capacity and enough electricity to power ~75 million homes. Investment was $162 billion, with $117 billion of that coming from G20 nations.

The G20 nations’ governments collectively committed $184+ billion in stimulus spending to NE & EE in 2009 but only ~16% has so far been put to work. The bulk of the money is expected to keep driving growth for innovators, businesses and installers in 2010 and 2011.

The U.S. was replaced by China as the overall leader in NE &EE finance and investment in 2009. From 2005 to 2008, China built its NE & EE manufacturing base through the development of foreign markets. In 2009, it began growing its domestic demand with ambitious new installed capacity commitments.

U.S. NE & EE investment in 2009 fell for the first time since 2005. It was 40% below the 2008 number. Only long term extensions of the federal production tax credit (PTC) and investment tax credit (ITC) and emergency measures included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) kept 2009 investment up as high as it was.

Domestic policy decisions drive growth. Capital is invested where long term policy promises long term federal support. National Renewable Energy Standards (RESs), feed-in tariffs (FiTs) and other long-term financial incentives and national commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions (GhGs) in G-20 nations (especially China, Brazil, Germany and Spain) are the foundation for their significant NE & EE growth and the U.S. lack of all such policies (except inconsistently allotted financial incentives) explains its falling position.

The U.S. had a 0.13% investment intensity (the percent of GDP invested in NE & EE) in 2009. Spain’s investment intensity was 5 times greater (0.74%) and the UK (0.51%), China (0.39%) and Brazil (0.37%) were around 3 times greater.

Only the U.S. gift of abundant natural resources and its powerful entrepreneurial tradition kept it among G20 leaders. Only aggressive new policies are likely to keep it there going forward.

World wind power, because of its widely recognized technological maturity and cost-competitiveness, won 50+% of the world’s 2009 sector investment and ~50% of the world’s new installed NE generating capacity.

U.S., Spanish and EU investments in various solar technologies won solar power the second most investor attention, with a growing but still significantly smaller share in world NE investment in 2009. Solar costs are dropping quickly toward grid parity and its share of total financing, across the full spectrum of its technologies (silicon PV, thin film PV and solar power plants) is expected to continue growing.

Biofuel investment, a leader during the period of enthusiasm for its promise in 2006 to 2007, dropped off in 2008 and 2009 as governments and private investors discovered flaws in the way biofuel crops drive up food commodity prices, increase rain forest destruction and fail to reduce GhGs.

Asset financingAsset financing is the dominant type of NE & EE finance. It is usually used to grow manufacturing and install capacity. Due to the credit crunch, 2009 asset financing fell 6% from 2008 to $94.9 billion but remained 80+% of NE & EE investment. Largely directed at physical infrastructure (power, heat and fuels that generate electricity), the largest part of the financing went to onshore wind. China got the most asset financing in 2009 and the U.S. got the second most.

Public market financingThis category is essentially market investments, much of it from initial public offerings (IPOs). The willingness of investors to provide capital through IPOs began falling after a 2007 high of $23 billion. By last year, IPOs were down 45% to $12.1 billion. Most companies in G20 nations were not even going to a market that was by last year less than 11% of G20 NE & EE investment. At the end of last year, however, there was some return of IPO activity in China. It is an indicator that bears watching.

Venture capital (VC)/private equity (PE) financingWith the financial crash, venture capitalists backed away from the risky business of financing innovation. VC/PE activity was down 43% in 2009 to $6.4 billion. What activity remained was largely in the U.S. (more than 60%), in next-gen biofuels, cutting edge solar, EE and smart grid technologies.

Germany has the most installed solar energy capacity in the world. The U.S. has the most total installed wind, biomass and geothermal capacities but China had the most NEW installed wind capacity in 2009 and is threatening the U.S. in overall world NE leadership. New, aggressive policies and emissions reduction commitments and programs in Spain, Brazil and India have also moved them into competitive NE & EE positions among the G20 nations.

World stimulus plans allotted a total of $184 billion for NE & EE spending (including $67 billion by the U.S. and $47 billion by China) but only 9% ($16.6 billion) of it had been put to work by the end of 2009 (with the U.S. and South Korea leading). Two-thirds of the stimulus investment is expected to be put to work in 2010 and 2011.

Because credit remained available in Asia despite the global financial crisis, Asian investment in NE & EE increased 37% in 2009 to $39.02 billion. It was led by China’s enormous spending for wind power. At the same time, due to the economic downturn, investment in NE & EE dropped 33% in the Americas and 16% in Europe.

NE & EE 2010 investment is predicted to grow 25% to $200 billion. If the patterns of where the investment takes place continue, the U.S. is on its way to also-ran status.

QUOTES- From the Pew Charitable Trusts: “Policy, investment and business experts alike have noted that the clean energy economy is emerging as one of the great global economic and environmental opportunities of the 21st century. Local, state and national leaders in the United States and around the world increasingly recognize that safe, reliable, clean energy—solar, wind, bioenergy and energy efficiency—can be harnessed to create jobs and businesses, reduce dependence on foreign energy sources, enhance national security and reduce global warming pollution…”

- From the Pew study: “…Nations seeking to compete effectively for clean energy jobs and manufacturing would do well to evaluate the array of policy mechanisms that can be employed to stimulate clean energy investment. This is especially true for policymakers in the United States, which is at risk of falling further behind its G-20 competitors in the coming years unless it adopts a strong national policy framework to spur more robust clean energy investment…”

Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that will ReCharge America by Sherry Boschert: "Smart companies plan ahead and try to be the first to adopt new technology that will give them a competitive advantage. That’s what Toyota and Honda did with hybrids, and now they’re sitting pretty. Whichever company is first to bring a good plug-in hybrid to market will not only change their fortune but change the world."

Oil On The Brain; Adventures from the Pump to the Pipeline by Lisa Margonelli: "Spills are one of the costs of oil consumption that don’t appear at the pump. [Oil consultant Dagmar Schmidt Erkin]’s data shows that 120 million gallons of oil were spilled in inland waters between 1985 and 2003. From that she calculates that between 1980 and 2003, pipelines spilled 27 gallons of oil for every billion “ton miles” of oil they transported, while barges and tankers spilled around 15 gallons and trucks spilled 37 gallons. (A ton of oil is 294 gallons. If you ship a ton of oil for one mile you have one ton mile.) Right now the United States ships about 900 billion ton miles of oil and oil products per year."

NOTEWORTHY IN THE MEDIA:
NewEnergyNews would welcome any media-saavy volunteer who would like to re-develop this section of the page. Announcements and reviews of film, television, radio and music related to energy and environmental issues are welcome.

Review of OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The American Decades by Mark S. Friedman

OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The American Decades, the second volume of Herman K. Trabish’s retelling of oil’s history in fiction, picks up where the first book in the series, OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The Story of Our Addiction, left off. The new book is an engrossing, informative and entertaining tale of the Roaring 20s, World War II and the Cold War. You don’t have to know anything about the first historical fiction’s adventures set between the Civil War, when oil became a major commodity, and World War I, when it became a vital commodity, to enjoy this new chronicle of the U.S. emergence as a world superpower and a world oil power.

As the new book opens, Lefash, a minor character in the first book, witnesses the role Big Oil played in designing the post-Great War world at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Unjustly implicated in a murder perpetrated by Big Oil agents, LeFash takes the name Livingstone and flees to the U.S. to clear himself. Livingstone’s quest leads him through Babe Ruth’s New York City and Al Capone’s Chicago into oil boom Oklahoma. Stymied by oil and circumstance, Livingstone marries, has a son and eventually, surprisingly, resolves his grievances with the murderer and with oil.

In the new novel’s second episode the oil-and-auto-industry dynasty from the first book re-emerges in the charismatic person of Victoria Wade Bridger, “the woman everybody loved.” Victoria meets Saudi dynasty founder Ibn Saud, spies for the State Department in the Vichy embassy in Washington, D.C., and – for profound and moving personal reasons – accepts a mission into the heart of Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe. Underlying all Victoria’s travels is the struggle between the allies and axis for control of the crucial oil resources that drove World War II.

As the Cold War begins, the novel’s third episode recounts the historic 1951 moment when Britain’s MI-6 handed off its operations in Iran to the CIA, marking the end to Britain’s dark manipulations and the beginning of the same work by the CIA. But in Trabish’s telling, the covert overthrow of Mossadeq in favor of the ill-fated Shah becomes a compelling romance and a melodramatic homage to the iconic “Casablanca” of Bogart and Bergman.

Monty Livingstone, veteran of an oil field youth, European WWII combat and a star-crossed post-war Berlin affair with a Russian female soldier, comes to 1951 Iran working for a U.S. oil company. He re-encounters his lost Russian love, now a Soviet agent helping prop up Mossadeq and extend Mother Russia’s Iranian oil ambitions. The reunited lovers are caught in a web of political, religious and Cold War forces until oil and power merge to restore the Shah to his future fate. The romance ends satisfyingly, America and the Soviet Union are the only forces left on the world stage and ambiguity is resolved with the answer so many of Trabish’s characters ultimately turn to: Oil.

Commenting on a recent National Petroleum Council report calling for government subsidies of the fossil fuels industries, a distinguished scholar said, “It appears that the whole report buys these dubious arguments that the consumer of energy is somehow stupid about energy…” Trabish’s great and important accomplishment is that you cannot read his emotionally engaging and informative tall tales and remain that stupid energy consumer. With our world rushing headlong toward Peak Oil and epic climate change, the OIL IN THEIR BLOOD series is a timely service as well as a consummate literary performance.

Review of OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, The Story of Our Addiction by Mark S. Friedman

"...ours is a culture of energy illiterates." (Paul Roberts, THE END OF OIL)

OIL IN THEIR BLOOD, a superb new historical fiction by Herman K. Trabish, addresses our energy illiteracy by putting the development of our addiction into a story about real people, giving readers a chance to think about how our addiction happened. Trabish's style is fine, straightforward storytelling and he tells his stories through his characters.

The book is the answer an oil family's matriarch gives to an interviewer who asks her to pass judgment on the industry. Like history itself, it is easier to tell stories about the oil industry than to judge it. She and Trabish let readers come to their own conclusions.

She begins by telling the story of her parents in post-Civil War western Pennsylvania, when oil became big business. This part of the story is like a John Ford western and its characters are classic American melodramatic heroes, heroines and villains.

In Part II, the matriarch tells the tragic story of the second generation and reveals how she came to be part of the tales. We see oil become an international commodity, traded on Wall Street and sought from London to Baku to Mesopotamia to Borneo. A baseball subplot compares the growth of the oil business to the growth of baseball, a fascinating reflection of our current president's personal career.

There is an unforgettable image near the center of the story: International oil entrepreneurs talk on a Baku street. This is Trabish at his best, portraying good men doing bad and bad men doing good, all laying plans for wealth and power in the muddy, oily alley of a tiny ancient town in the middle of everywhere. Because Part I was about triumphant American heroes, the tragedy here is entirely unexpected, despite Trabish's repeated allusions to other stories (Casey At The Bat, Hamlet) that do not end well.

In the final section, World War I looms. Baseball takes a back seat to early auto racing and oil-fueled modernity explodes. Love struggles with lust. A cavalry troop collides with an army truck. Here, Trabish has more than tragedy in mind. His lonely, confused young protagonist moves through the horrible destruction of the Romanian oilfields only to suffer worse and worse horrors, until--unexpectedly--he finds something, something a reviewer cannot reveal. Finally, the question of oil must be settled, so the oil industry comes back into the story in a way that is beyond good and bad, beyond melodrama and tragedy.

Along the way, Trabish gives readers a greater awareness of oil and how we became addicted to it. Awareness, Paul Roberts said in THE END OF OIL, "...may be the first tentative step toward building a more sustainable energy economy. Or it may simply mean that when our energy system does begin to fail, and we begin to lose everything that energy once supplied, we won't be so surprised."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.